![]() ![]() So, my suggestion would be to try the free version first.įrom my weeks of experience I can say that I switched to XFOIL (I like those old progs though ) to generate polars for the main wing, but my FDM is still very much WIP. However, I'm pretty sure you'll have to write exactly the same input (text) file by hand.įor this I found the following a good basic tutorial: Īnd you probably will still have to study the original Digital Datcom users manual: The Pro version will provide more examples and documentation. Some examples are included in the free version too. The cross-sections, I think I don't get w/ the free version but as I can load the AC3D I don't really need them. The included viewer doesn't work here (linux), but I can load it in an 3-D program (e.g. I believe the images you see on are from output files.Īs for the AC3D model, the free version does produce one. I don't know about the Pro version, but actually I don't think it provides a complete GUI. ![]() My experience (prog and aerodynamic) is about the same as Necolatis, I would say. ![]() Honza Honzaku Posts: 88 Joined: Sat 6:00 pm Location: Between LKPR and LKVO, Czech Republic I hope I am not the only who would be interested in this theme. Regarding to my background: I am a mechanical engineer, but aerodynamics is not my specialization, so I have just basic knowledge of it (one semesters of fluid mechanics and one semester of thermo-mechanics at the university). On the other hand, I guess the best results could be produced for fighter jets and T-tail airliners, since it seems to me there could be the smallest interaction between the surfaces mutually and the air flow from the engines.Īnd how big improvement can be expected even for the best category? Is it significant or it is usually just lot of extra work and some money spent for the program to produce hardly noticeable improvement. My opinion is the worst results can be expected for propeller biplanes, since there is the biggest space for mutual interaction of the aircraft surfaces and propeller which is very hard to reasonably cover by some simple formulas. Jet airliners with tail engines and T-tail (Soviet classic - Tu 154, Il-62, or western VC-10, DC-9, etc. Jet airliners with under wing engines (Boeings, Airbuses, etc.) Propeller multiengine aircrafts (Piper Seneca, ATR-72, DC-3, Ilyushin Il-18.) Small to medium low wing propeller aircraft (Piper Cherokee, Spitfire.) Small to medium high wing propeller aircraft ( i.e. So can some give me a hint what can I expect for following categories: I think there will be difference between the quality of results for different plane conceptions. How does it work with wing profiles? Does it contains built in database of profiles and you just fill-in the profile name (code) and the program does the rest, or it incorporates something like X-foil so you have to import the profile shape and than it will calculates the coefficients? Or you have to import the Cl, Cd, and Cm curves by yourself?Īs long as I understand it, all the coefficients are calculated from the geometry of the plane you supplied to the program by using a set of mainly empirical or maybe also some analytical formulas, which approximate the real effects. So If there is somebody who knows more, I would like to kindly ask him for few questions. Yes, I know there is freeware version, but I am not from the generation which is used to operate the computer through the command line only and think, if the program can bring really that big improvement to the FDM building process, the price of $30 is worth to pay for me. But there are not any reviews, users experience or tutorials from some real projects. According to what I've read, it seems to be the best and the most accurate method to get aero coefficients unless you have real measured or some proper CFD data, of course. For a long time I've been seeing links to a DATCOM program which can be used as an alternative to Aeromatic to generate aerodynamic coefficients for JSBSim.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |